Wolf Trap – Keep Your Trap Shut

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
April 15, 2015

In this day and age, no one knows any one’s phone number. They either click the name, or speak the name into the phone. So, what happens when your phone is taken away, and then you get to make a phone call from a detention center?

Wolf was arrested in March 26. We found out about the arrest that day, and that he was detained at the Yellowstone County Detention Facility. It appears to be a county run, rather than a contracted facility; however, their phone system is quite profitable for the contractor. A collect call from an inmate costs $3.75 for the first minute and then a $1.00 each additional minute, with calls limited to 20 minutes. However, if they have money in their Commissary Account, they only pay 35¢ per minute, same limit.

Wolf received my Priority Mail envelope on Monday, March 30, and, since my letterhead had a phone number, he called me, beginning our communication. He understood what I had asked, answered some of the questions I posed, promised to provide a written account of the incident that led up to and culminated in his arrest on federal charges. We also discussed a legal maneuver, the Demand for Habeas Corpus (See Habeas Corpus – The Guardian of Liberty) and exactly how to proceed with it. He affirmed that he had executed the Power of Attorney, and he knew exactly how to proceed the next time he was in front of a judge. Undoubtedly, the call was recorded or monitored, so I’m sure that they were privy to our objective. It appears, however, that it took a couple of days for the jailers to get instructions, find somebody to make a decision, or otherwise decide that he should no longer be able to communicate with those outside. Our last phone call was Thursday, April 2.

He had asked that I pass messages on to R, T, C, and N, which I did, immediately after our first conversation. R was in communication with him and made sure that there was money in his commissary, so he was able to call out until April 2. In addition, he assured me, on the 2nd, that the written account would be sent as soon as he could get an envelope and stamps.

After contacting R and others, I found was not the only one who had received no mail or phone calls from Wolf. I decided that I wanted to shake some things up. I wrote a letter and for tracking purposes, sent it Priority Mail. For the purpose of this article, the pertinent portion of the communication is as follows:

April 10, 2015

I called the detention center and all they could tell me was that you had money in the commissary fund, which means that unless something untoward has occurred, I should have heard from you, as should T & R have heard.

This is rather concerning, and I think that you can understand why. So, here is what we/I will do.

I will expect a phone call from you the day that you receive this letter. If I do not hear, in a reasonable amount of time, there are two assumptions that I can make.

First, that you are holding out communicating, perhaps hoping that we, outside, will react, and act. This is not going to happen. We have a remedy, or two, and I fully expect that there will be a resolution. However, that would lead me to take the third step, which, if nothing else, would be rather embarrassing to you when the truth came out.

Second, it is possible that they have put you in a hole and incommunicado. I would not be surprised at this, as I have heard from a couple of attorneys working on federal matters (you know who they represent) that have decided that, to be kind, I am no friend to them. It seems in the second matter, they have gotten blowback that they never expected. We should find out, soon, what the consequences are. If, however, they have treated you in the manner suggested, that also moves me to step three. This would result in extreme embarrassment on the part of both the Detention Facility and the federal yahoos. And, because of the recent Texas story, MSM may be beginning to listen to us.

So, what is step three? Quite simply, I contact Billings Gazette, other local newspapers, and some local radio and television stations, and explain that they have put you in a black hole and incommunicado. Absent charges, bail, or any information on you. It will fare poorly for the responsible party. I would not want to be in their shoes.

I’m sure that my articles on the subject will elicit additional participation by my hundreds of followers (I will give them all of the appropriate contact information).

So, you (those reading this communication) are advised.

Priority Mail tracking indicated that it was delivered to the mailbox on Monday, April 13. This time, I heard nothing and have no idea whether they had violated federal postal laws (remember, he has yet to be officially charged with a crime) and refused to give him my letter. I still do not have an answer to that question.

However, he managed to get a call out to V, Tuesday, April 14, morning. V then advised us, via email, of the rather cryptic communication received from Wolf, which reads as follows:

Wolf called me this morning from YCDF.
He said he is under a communication block – his mail is being read, mail comes without envelopes, and they won’t let him have any mailing out material,
He said that “thing from his regular guest” will probably be blocked. I don’t know anymore and he didn’t explain any more.
He said he isn’t charged yet, and no bond. He’s being blocked from access to his Attorney in Fact.
Sorry his was so cryptic, but I’ve tried to relay it the way he said it.

The “thing from the regular guest” is, of course, the Habeas Corpus. The Attorney in Fact is the same as the preparer of the Habeas Corpus.

I spoke with V and he informed me that Wolf said that since he had called V, V would now be put on the “blocked” list — no longer able to be called. Why he was allowed to call anyone is surely a question to be answered. Is it possible they can block calls without cause? Is it possible that calls are monitored for content? Has Wolf been given a list of prohibited content? Or, do they just make the shit up as they go?

On a more positive note, early this afternoon, R received mail with the executed “Memorandum in support of Habeas Corpus”, the Power of Attorney, and the long awaited account of Wolf’s side of the story. This was accomplished only because Wolf managed to find someone to mail out for him what the Detention Facility would not allow him to mail out.

What is abundantly clear is that though he was arrested on March 26, he has told me that he insisted on a Grand Jury Indictment, in accordance with the Constitution. “They” said that the case would go before a Grand Jury, though we do not know when. He is being held, without bond and without charges, as shown on the YCDF inmate search page. With his last name, “Wolf”, in the search box, you get this:

Then clicking either his name or the “Charges” link, you get this:

So, Wolf has been held in jail for 20 days, without charges and no bail set. Though he initially had some communication privileges (incoming mail and phone, but no outgoing mail), those have been curtailed to no privileges, at all, unless he can continue to devise means to communicate. If the pattern holds, and he is only able to make one call to a person, who is then blocked, then it cannot be even remotely considered communication. The only thing missing is a damp, dark dungeon.

Update – April 14, 2015: Wolf has directed the documents that he was supposed to send me, and a letter, through the Defense Attorney that has been assigned to him. He has managed to circumvent the restrictions, at least to some degree. That would suggest that he still has his spirit up and is not yielding to their attempts at intimidation. However, and I agree with him, he did say, “They will not win!” More on this, later.

Government’s job is to govern the Government,
Not to govern the People.

Waco – A Lesson in History

Part III
A New Revelation

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
March 4, 2015

The Danforth Commission concluded, contrary to the evidence, that the government had done no wrong. While that Commission was rationalizing the actions of the government, Mike McNulty and David Hardy continued their investigation, via both interviews and FOIA requests for documentation. Even before the initial report from the Danforth Commission, “Waco – A New Revelation” (Documentary film – 1:49:50) became available.

Speculation, however absent any proof of involvement by the military, of snipers shooting those who tried to leave during the fire, and of possible ties to the White House (Bill Clinton), had persisted early on. For example, one of the Davidians, a British citizen, who, after he left Mt. Carmel and was taken into custody along with the rest of those who came out of the fire, was released at the request of the British government and returned to England. He revealed to me in a phone conversation that when women and children tried to leave through the kitchen door, into the back courtyard, they were being shot. He told me this in confidence and assured me that he would never admit to what he had told me, as he did not want to take a chance of being returned to the United States to stand trial. Absent any corroboration, I could not publish what he had revealed to me.

You will hear some disclaimers from the government, such as that the Army was not involved (true, as the military involved was detached from the Army) and that the Delta Force was not involved (true, since the official name of the group is Command Application Group, assigned to the President’s command), and other obvious misrepresentations presented to evade an honest answer to the questions asked. However, you will see that some of the facts are available, and that the unfortunate, for government, truth is coming out. And, as these truths are revealed, you will see the government in a way that you have never seen them, before.

You will also see that snipers were, indeed, shooting into the courtyard, though the government insists that what you see is not what you see. And, that is a whole other story, but we will get there.

If you were upset after viewing Rules of Engagement, you will sickened as you see the government intent to justifying, rationalizing, and downright lying, about those events, even to the point of rewarding those who were participants in the activities.

Finally, and this question has long been asked, was Lon Horiuchi, the sniper who murdered Vicki Weaver at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, just months before the assault on the Waco Church, present during the events at the latter. You will see written proof that he was in charge of one of the three sniper teams deployed to assure that “no harm would come to the women and children”.

As you watch this video, you will see members of Congress assert “truths” that have no foundation in fact, absolutely contrary to logic and reason, born, we may surmise, from their desire to protect government agents from any accusation that the are less than honorable, honest, forthright, and truthful. You will be appalled at the political machinations of those we have allowed to enact laws and run government.

Links to the other parts:

Waco A Lesson in History – Part I – Looking Back at Waco

Waco A Lesson in History – Part II – Rules of Engagement

Waco A Lesson in History – Part IV – The FLIR Project

Escalation – What’s Next?

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
January 12, 2015

We need to get a perspective on the patriot community that has been overlooked, probably because most of the people within our community are, although sincere, focused only where they stand on the “progression of involvement” (See The Other (not so) Thin Line) within their own community. Quite simply, many have still maintained that the election process is able to effect the change that we seek, while ignoring the failure of that process over the past many decades. Next, we have those who have recognized the failure of that process, but don’t know where to go. Then there are those who realize that nothing will change without violence, though they are not motivated, for whatever reason, to pursue that objective. Finally, there are those who are ready to act, though they are constrained by their fear of other patriots as much as their fear of the government.

Let’s put another perspective on the relationship between various groups of people who are known to commit violent acts. First, we have the Muslims. They are, by Mainstream Media (MSM), divided into two categories, Extreme and Moderate. The Extremes perpetrate violent acts such as the well-known beheading of Westerners, directed attacks with rifles, as in Canada and Paris, France, and many other activities such as the Boston Bombing, that have cost the lives of innocent people without any justifiable targeting of those killed. The moderates, however, sit quietly by, acting as if nothing is going wrong, yet they won’t object to the actions of the extremes. (See Can Muslims fit into our society? Is There a Difference Between a “Moderate Muslim” and a “Radical Muslim”?)

Next, let’s look at law enforcement in our own country. Most tabulations of the number of unarmed people killed by law enforcement, this past year, approach or exceed 1,000. This doesn’t count those with serious, even lifetime, injuries, damage, or loss of a family pet that “threatened” the officer. Let’s call those cops that conduct these activities, even if only one, or many times, “extreme” cops. The remaining “moderate” cops, even though their job is to enforce the laws of the land, state, etc., do not arrest or charge their fellow officers, they do, however, offer support, if only by inaction, and will readily defend those officers who have, “for their own safety”, committed such acts. Not much different from those moderate Muslims, are they? (See To shoot a cop, or, not to shoot a cop)

Finally, we get to the Patriots who realize that things are getting worse with each administration of government. Within that group, we have both “moderate” patriots and “extreme” patriots. The extreme patriots are those who are ready and willing to act, and often those contemplated acts, though directed, might result in the loss of innocent lives. A example of this would by the April 19, 1995, bombing of the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City. (See below)

Where the moderate patriots are making a mistake, to use the words of Chief Mark Kessler, is that we all “have an obligation to turn in to the government anybody who is going to do something that will cost innocent lives”. That quote is from a recent conversation I had with Kessler. What happened resulted in the arrest of three men in Georgia is explained in Mark Kessler – The “Screw” Turns – Part 3. The FBI promulgated the suggestion that innocent lives would be lost when they interviewed “Blood Agent” This theme was carried on by Kessler and the MSM, that their acts would be random and would take innocent lives. However, recently the government has, in their official Indictment, made clear that “The three men were being monitored by the FBI in an online chat room where they discussed launching attacks at an Atlanta police station and other government agencies.” Initial MSM reports did not detail the limitations that the FBI placed upon the acts that the three had intended, making their plot to be far more sinister than it really was.

Mainstream Media often plays an important role in demonization. An example of this is the Hutaree Militia (2012-13), as explained in Thought Crimes, where the media, probably at the instigation of the government, laid out a story that was, well, fabricated. Otherwise, the Court would not have eventually dismissed the charges.

Our susceptibility to these divisive means of splitting our ranks is a result of “propaganda” and our willingness to judge those within our movement, turning against them if what they may, or may not, have planned is beyond our current (where we are along that Thin Line – linked above) conviction as to what is acceptable, and what is not.

So, Muslim moderates and Law Enforcement moderates both support their extreme elements. Patriots, however, turn against our extreme elements, and, we turn them over to the government — our enemy, in our efforts to restore proper constitutional limits upon the government.

We will have to visit the past to get a better understanding of what I mean. In 1995, Tim McVeigh bombed a government building. Outrage was the response of the patriots, since there were innocent women and children in the building. McVeigh explained why he targeted a government building when he wrote “Why I bombed the Murrah Federal Building“. Now, where could he possibly get the idea that it was a “retaliatory strike, and that federal agents had become soldiers… it was a preemptive or proactive strike… against their control center.”

In a Philadelphia Enquirer article, dated April 9, 1999, during NATO’s Yugoslavia (Kosovo and Serbia) War, declared, with full support of the Pentagon, that,

“In the air war, Pentagon officials said NATO’s warplanes would increasingly target government buildings, industries and state-run television relays in an attempt to shake the foundation of President Slobodan Milosevic’s regime [5th paragraph in the article].”

This practice has been carried through in all subsequent “wars” that we have been involved in, unless the government buildings were deemed friendly.

Let’s suppose that anybody that is a patriot can find the point on this list where they would feel comfortable. Go ahead, pick your number. Now, think back. Where were you a year ago? Two years ago? Presumably, you have progressed, as you realize the failure of your earlier position.

1. Voting for a political party
2. Voting for individuals (based upon their record)
3. Mass meetings to discuss problems (Tea Party, or other participation)
4. Street demonstrations (Overpass, etc.)
5. Trips to Washington for demonstrations (OAS, Veterans, truck drivers, tractors, etc.)
6. Civil disobedience (subjecting yourself to arrest by expressing yourself – Freedom of Speech)
7. Civil defiance (willing to retaliate with force, such as Bundy Ranch or the WWII veterans memorial)
8. Sabotage of government property (vehicles, etc.)
9. Breaking into government facilities (intelligence information, equipment, & supplies)
10. Sabotage of government property (destroying electronics, communication towers, etc.)
11. Targeting individuals with proven abuse of authority resulting in injury or destruction of property
12. Targeting individuals with proven abuse of authority resulting in death/serious injury of unarmed people
13. Targeting individuals who work for government
14. Sabotage of government property (destruction of facilities)
15. Destruction of Infrastructure Utilities (Primarily serving Government facilities)
16. Prison breaks (selectively releasing political prisoners)
17. Ambushes (of targeted government vehicles or convoys)
18. Destruction of a Government Building (night time)
19. Raids (police stations, fusion centers, etc.)
20. Destruction of a Government Building (day time)
21. Prison breaks (releasing all prisoners)
22. Destruction of Infrastructure Utilities – Primarily serving general population

Just for kicks, now suppose where you will be if Hillary becomes president, or the police kill another thousand unarmed people this year, or, well, use your imagination as to what events may change you position — move higher in the numbers of the list. That should bring to light what was explained in “The Other (not so) Thin Line“.

We should be able to understand that each of us has, through our own experience, found that we continue to move into a greater sense of necessity, if we are to restore constitutional government. The problem arises when we insist that others cannot go beyond where we are.

Unfortunately, if we continue to pursue this course, we chop off the experienced head, those who have, by their experiences, moved further along that line. Does it make any sense, at all, to have such a detrimental effect on our community, just because we want to constrain them to what we impose upon ourselves?

Think very hard before you do anything that sets us back rather than moves us ahead.

The Declaration of Independence Has Been Outlawed

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
January 9, 2015

“[W]hen long trains of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide for new guards for their future security.”

Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776

With those words, the War for Independence from British Rule began, in earnest. That Declaration of Independence is the premier founding document, for, absent the fortitude of those who supported it, with their lives, fortunes, sacred honor, and their willingness to die in the battle to contest the overreaching authority of British Rule, in violation of the British Constitution, the United States Constitution would never have been conceived. Instead, for the first time in the history of man, the people were the source of the authority that created the government.

Murder and theft, crime against people and property, are broken down into degrees of severity. That is the means by which certain crimes are graded, and punished, based upon the people assembled in a jury — so that the will of the people is supreme, and the government simply carries out the administrative function of the process of Justice.

What happens when the government enacts laws that make it a more serious crime to kill because of an emotion? They call them “hate crimes”, though they seem to be applied in only one direction. The result is that only a certain class of people can have harsher penalties applied, because the government says so, than if the killing was for money, jealousy, rage, or even random. Simply, the idea is to outlaw certain forms of thought (See Freedom of Speech and Thought Crimes). It is a form of social engineering, or more accurately, reconditioning to comply with the dictates of government’s control of not only our speech, but also our thoughts and actions.

Every state constitution, as well as the United States Constitution, recognizes that the creation of their respective governments, grants of authority, and limitations of power, are sourced from the people, themselves (“We the People”). It was presumed by the Founders that the authority of the people was such that they could, as so stated in the above quote from the Declaration of Independence, abolish a government that violated the limitations, and usurped authority, at the discretion of the people, not the discretion of the government. In fact, if you read closely, they even imposed the responsibility as a “duty”, to assure the perpetuation of the Great Experiment that they had initiated.

The FBI recently (August 20, 2013) published as an FBI Press Release, a description of the United States Code definition of Terrorism (Definition of Terrorism in US Code).

Definitions of Terrorism in the U.S. Code

18 U.S.C. § 2331 defines “international terrorism” and “domestic terrorism” for purposes of Chapter 113B of the Code, entitled “Terrorism”:

“International terrorism” means activities with the following three characteristics:

• Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
• Appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
• Occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S., or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.*

“Domestic terrorism” means activities with the following three characteristics:

• Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
• Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
• Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.

18 U.S.C. § 2332b defines the term “federal crime of terrorism” as an offense that:

• Is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct; and
• Is a violation of one of several listed statutes, including § 930(c) (relating to killing or attempted killing during an attack on a federal facility with a dangerous weapon); and § 1114 (relating to killing or attempted killing of officers and employees of the U.S.).

* FISA defines “international terrorism” in a nearly identical way, replacing “primarily” outside the U.S. with “totally” outside the U.S. 50 U.S.C. § 1801(c).

* * *

So, just to get you thinking about the ramifications and the authority presumed by the government, but not granted by the Constitution, let’s look from the other side. If police use force to “influence or affect the conduct of [people] by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against [people’s] conduct”, then they, too, should be guilty of terrorism, especially when they are armed as an army, and protected against most means of assault by use of armor far more invincible than knights of old.

However, like hate crime laws, terrorism is a one-way street. The government cannot be guilty of terrorism, whether around the world, or within the States of the Union, any more than a White person can be the victim of a hate crime.

Despotism (as understood by the Founders – Webster’s 1828 Dictionary)

Absolute power; authority unlimited and uncontrolled by men, constitution or laws, and depending alone on the will of the prince; as the despotism of a Turkish sultan.

If we simply replace “prince” with “president”, and then evaluate whether we have reached that definitive point in our history, then we understand that there is a mandate from our source documents (the Declaration of Independence) that has, in effect, been outlawed by a despotic government.

To shoot a cop, or, not to shoot a cop

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
January 5, 2015

Recent events have resulted in increased random shootings of police officers, around the country. Though the practice might not be deemed contemptible in one set of circumstances, it might be considered unjustified in the current situation.

Perhaps if we can separate what is acceptable and what is not, we can get a better grasp on what the variation in circumstances might warrant, as opposed to what is not warranted.

The shooting of police officers is a necessary consequence, when done with the proper circumstances, of forcing the government to submit to the will of the people, rather than the people submitting to the will of the government.

In light of both Waco and the Oklahoma City bombing, circumstances were different than those of today. Police force was exerted on the branch Davidians in Waco, resulting in the death of nearly a hundred men, women, and children — at the hands of law enforcement.

The Oklahoma City Bombing, conducted by Timothy McVeigh, was in retaliation for what he had experienced in Iraq and what he observed in Waco. Though we may not agree with his method, surely, his actions were directed at the source of the problem — an overreaching government.

Examples of the circumstances, in the nineties, are explained in two interviews I did at the time, Popping Cops and Breaking the Bonds of Slavery, the latter being more demonstrative of the justification of such actions.

However, the current circumstances, including both the events that lead up to the current furor and the significant change in the nature of law enforcement, have created a bit of a quandary. For example, if a cop is shot, the assumption, in both Mainstream Media (MSM) and the alternative media, will be that it is an act of retaliation for the deaths of Michael Brown and Eric Garner. This based upon the outrageous calling for killing any, and all, cops. Not that it would be outrageous under the proper circumstances, though that is lost in the current media hype, and there is little possibility of extracting an act against government from the story, if that were the motivation. Surely, the cops, if they caught the shooter alive, would sequester him so tightly that any story he had would never see the light of day. In addition, the presumption of retaliation would become the Prima Facie Story.

The perspective then would perhaps be “the right thing to do, for the wrong reason. It would place the patriot community in a position of supporting the “don’t shoot me, I’m black” crowd, without regard to the fact that black cops have shot both unarmed black and white people, and that most crimes, and killings, of blacks are by blacks.

During the sixties, the anti-war movement was intertwined with the black rights movement, placing the strictly “end the war in Vietnam” crowd with the mantle of black rights support or Women’s Liberation, though untrue to significant numbers of the anti-war crowd. They were stigmatized, by the press, into what they were not.

The same consequence is likely to occur, today, by tying the “restoration of constitutional government” group inextricably, to the “don’t shoot me, I’m black” crowd, which will co-join the two in the press, and might likely become a damper on, or destroyer of, the patriot movement.

However, there may be a solution — one that would provide a distinction, and also bring to light the fact that cops don’t discriminate because of color, when they kill unarmed people. They also kill unarmed whites, as well as other races, with the same impunity that they do when they kill blacks.

This past March (2014), Albuquerque Police Officer Keith Sandy shot and killed James Boyd, for illegal camping. Boyd was white, as was Sandy. However, there is complete video footage of the event, and leaves, without a doubt, the guilt on both Sandy, the other officers on the scene, and the entire police department that justified what can be called nothing but “murder”.

There are many that believe that Darren Wilson, who shot Brown, may well have been justified, as there had already been aggressive physical contact while Wilson was still in his patrol car.

When NYPD officer Daniel Pantaleo used a chokehold, or other restraint method, resulting, directly or indirectly, in the death of Eric Garner, the justification for Pantaleo’s action and the cause of death are not so clear.

Of these three events, the clearest, in terms of justification of the officer’s actions is Wilson/Brown event. Next, we have the murky events surrounding the Pantaleo/Garner incident, though this seems to be the motivation for the current outrage. Finally, we have the Sandy/Boyd event, where clearly there was no justification for the action resulting in Boyd’s death.

However, the motivation for the “kill the cops” effort stems from the event that seems to have the most justification (Garner), and is supported by the questionable, though newsworthy story (thanks MSM, Mayor de Blasio, and the Executive Branch). This is founded upon the Brown event (thanks MSM and the Executive Branch), and used to support the resulting attitude. While Boyd’s death, the least justifiable, is lost to MSM and the Executive Branch, and seems to only have recognition in the patriot community.

What would bring this into an acceptable realm for the patriot community? Surely, supporting the “kill all cops” attitude can only bring discredit upon us. It might also lead to a race war, as the black verses white issue is predominant.

What if we supported the police position? Well, would we then be supporting those who, by their nature, are not fulfilling their sworn duty to enforce the law, and would also be giving implied support for their killing James Boyd. This, too, might lead to a race war, as the cops are perceived as white — against the blacks.

Is there a position that we can, and should, support? There are two things that can be done to promote both by social/political action and by force that can have a positive effect for the patriot community.

First, we can hold the position that cops are not above the law, and only the people can determine what those limits will be. This can be accomplished by requiring that any time a person is shot, or otherwise physically abused, by a police officer, or any law enforcement officer, unless there is an active gunfight involved, that the matter go to a jury trial, so that the people, of the nation supposed to be governed with the consent of the people, determine whether the act was criminal, or not. That jury determination (not a grand jury where it is at the will of the US Attorney, State Attorney, or County Attorney) will set the standard for what is acceptable, and what is not acceptable, in the eyes of the local community — the local We the People.

Second, that any officer shot be one that is easily identifiable as having abused his authority (as in Sandy/Boyd), and warrants, without jury trial, as the evidence is so clear that guilt can only be ignored by obfuscation. The Internet provides many resources for the gathering of evidence sufficient to make such a determination (See Bad Cops and Targeting). This will have a two-fold effect on law enforcement. It will put those on notice who have not yet crossed the line, that there will possibly be consequences if they do cross that line. This might also lead them to want to distance themselves from those who have crossed the line. And, it will serve the effect suggested in Breaking the Bonds of Slavery.

Breaking the Bonds of Slavery

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
September 13, 1998

NOTE: This interview was conducted over 16 years ago, and times have changed. It must be read in conjunction with “To shoot a cop, or, not to shoot a cop”, which will put a perspective of on this article, based upon circumstances today.

* * * * *

 I had a conversation with a friend the other day. It turned into a hypothetical scenario, and I decided that it might make a good interview. John agreed. So, what you are about to read is a scenario developed around what COULD have happened in Germany in the mid to late thirties, when some of the German people first began to suspect that Hitler’s Reich was a little bit different than what it was set out to be. Only portions of the interview are included.

OPF: John, how are you, today?

JOHN: Fine Gary, and ready to go.

OPF: Okay, John, why don’t you lay out the basis for the scenario, first.

JOHN: Okay, it is 1938 and some of the people have begun to realize that the government has continued to expand its power, increase its revenue from the people, and imprison those who defy the rules established in this progression of what amounts to a submission to slavery. Now, when I speak of people, I intend that to mean only those who have begun to understand the existence of the problem. The rest of the people I will refer to as “the rest of the people”. The scene, however, is not very much different than the conditions that currently exist in America, except that America has not chosen a scapegoat race to direct negative emotions at. America has selected a portion of the people to direct their negative emotions. But, that is not the story line, so, back to Germany.

* * *

OPF: So, suppose the people of Germany wanted to protect their country from what was, apparently, a step in the wrong direction?

JOHN: Well, I think it was more than apparent. Work forces of citizens, paid from the common treasury, were put to work with shovels, building the Autobahn, and other public works projects. Having been denied the right to build an Army after World War I, the government realized that they could build an army with shovels, and then replace the shovels with rifles. Close quarter drills, maneuvers, bivouac, the workforce practiced every type of military function. Nobody did anything about it. Most realized that the workforce was training to be an army. Once trained, and given the guns, the government had a police force sufficient to control all of the people. Of course, the local officials were brought in as a part of the military force, and took their orders from the central government, enforcing whatever laws the government passed. It was at this time that the people should have acted. The prosperity for the few who were willing to submit to the government, and enforce their laws, at the expense of the rest of the people, placed them in a position of power. This power was abused, in many cases, but the rest of the people took it, without question — or, at least, not aloud. This, though, would have been the time to strike. Many people still had their rifles and some may have had explosives. Heavy equipment had not been developed for smaller jobs, and so it was not uncommon for farmers and others to have explosives. Had they used these explosives on the government force, random hits by small groups, they would have had an effect.

OPF: You mean that they should have killed the soldiers and the police?

JOHN: Had they killed soldiers and police, in random acts, they would have created more than what was then just a reward scenario for the soldiers and the police. They were acting with impunity, and were fed and paid better than the average worker.

OPF: That would have been dangerous. Wouldn’t they most likely get caught and executed?

JOHN: Many were killed, anyway. Most, eventually, as soldiers in war. Others that resisted were captured and imprisoned, many to die in prison. I suppose that the difference is whether you want to die fighting, or just die. I believe that some of the Germans that I met years ago really regretted what they allowed to have happened. I think that they would have, had they thought that it would get as bad as it did, done something about it.

OPF: Well, what would be the desired result, had they done these random acts of killing?

JOHN: Probably. Most importantly, is that they would have created fear within the government. Kind of like when the Oklahoma City bomb went off. I remember that you had written an article (Escalation & Fear: Fear & Escalation) about how the government had reacted to the bombing. They were scared. From what I have read, very few of those who were in the building have been willing to go back to work for the government. Then, others, like Bob Ricks, from Waco, retired shortly afterwards.

OPF: You mean, the idea of killing people would have been to get them to quit their jobs?

JOHN: That would be fair to say. You know that burglar alarms are as effective as burglar alarm stickers. The burglars see the sticker, and they decide that there may be too much risk and move on to the next house. Likewise, if they think that there is an angry dog inside, they go elsewhere.

OPF: So, killing them is just to scare them?

JOHN: Not exactly. It has a number of other effects, as well. As soon as it started, there would be very few, if any, individual soldiers or policeman doing anything. They would change their uniform before going home, and whenever something had to be done, they would travel in large enough groups to affect their safety. This would reduce the number of active units that could be imposing on the people, or breaking in doorways. It would also have the effect of reducing, or culling the herd. Each dead or injured soldier or policeman would have reduced the force by one. His death would also have a greater impact on his friends, and cause them some concern for what they were doing. I’m pretty sure that they knew what was happening, and this might have just moved them enough to refuse to go along with it. But, this never happened.

OPF: What about the political leaders?

JOHN: Well, there is no doubt that they could have been targets, as well. Had, say, Goering been killed, then much of what he did might never have happened. Just think about the world today. Didn’t we try to kill Gaddafi and Hussein? Didn’t we kill Diem and then plant our man as leader of South Vietnam? Taking the political leaders out is, definitely, a political tool.

* * *

OPF: What about the Deutsches Bank and other institutions that supported the government?

JOHN: Well, there is a lot of support of any government by many institutions in a country. Some may already be influential and others may be seeking influence. They do so on the premise that if they favor the government, they will be favored by the government. The government realizes that it needs all of the support, both financial and industrial, to achieve its purpose. So, each is scratching the other’s back. If something was done to create a risk greater than the benefit, then I think that they would think differently. After all, they, like the government, need employees to do anything. Can you imagine how effective a government would be if nobody worked for it?

* * *

OPF: Now, you have suggested that small groups of people could do this and get away with it. Do you really believe that they could get away with it?

JOHN: There is always a risk. If they were to operate properly — say, a group of two to five people, like they call cells nowadays, planned everything, scoped the job, wore rubber gloves, kept their “work clothes” somewhere else, set up alibis, and really did their homework, I would think that only chance or bad luck would keep them from safely doing their job. The more groups there were, the more thinly they would spread their opposition. And, they would have been wise to have established escape plans, and means to communicate with their families, once the had to flee.

OPF: Given the Gestapo tactics, wouldn’t there be risk of being infiltrated?

JOHN: Yes, there is always that risk. There is also the risk of having someone that is not an infiltrator get caught at something else and turn against his friends to reduce, or remove his punishment for another crime. Remember, you wrote about Don Bunds in Waco, and then there was Michael Fortier. That guy Marshall in West Virginia, and many other cases where informants or infiltrators caused the destruction of even innocent activity — like the Viper Militia. To protect themselves from something like this, they should watch for a change in the nature or actions of one of their members. You’ve seen the old black and white movies where someone gives himself away by having to make a call, or sneaks out, or some other activity. Every caution would have to have been taken to keep Gestapo informants from infiltrating, and if suspicion existed, plans would have to have been changed, or, maybe, the member taken out. No trial, but the possibility of error rather than the risk of losing the cell. If cells had to communicate, only one member of any given cell would be known to any of the other cells. Only one man could go down that way. This guy would have to be chosen by the others as the most stoic. The Gestapo could be pretty cruel when they wanted to be. Eventually, as successes were achieved, I think that it would have become more open, just like in France. Major operations were conducted after the cells were tried and hardened. Their communication became more wide based, even to the point of the BBC broadcasting instructions to various groups via the radio. By then, the cells were hardened and the chance if infiltration was almost non-existent. Had that happened in Germany, there would not be nearly as many American graves across the European countryside.

* * *

OPF: When should the people have begun acting in this way?

JOHN: It probably never would have been too early — once Hitler gained power. I would think, though, that, depending on where you lived and what you had experienced, that the time to begin would vary based upon your experience. I would like to think that as soon as you knew where things were going, like so many do today in this country, that you would form your cell and act. As each cell began acting, it would motivate others to do so. Soon the risk would have become so great that the Reich may never have even begun its attempt to conquer the world. But, starting could never have been considered too late. If cells began when the Germans were being pushed out of France, it still would have been effective.

* * *

OPF: Well, John, thanks for your time. I suppose, if people do act when they know something is wrong, like the Founding Fathers did, that they can achieve what they want. Perhaps World War II could have been avoided. It is something to think about.

JOHN: Your welcome, Gary. I think you are right. Many will probably, like those Germans I told you about, regret that they did not act sooner. I only wish I was younger and, well, if I had been a German…

Mark Kessler – Recent Past
Part 2

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
December , 2014

During the events that occurred on the Bundy Ranch in Nevada, Ryan Payne and I were talking about the future of OMA (Operation Mutual Aid). OMA was the first real call to arms on behalf of the Ranch. At the time, OMA’s leadership consisted of two people, Ryan Payne and Jerry Bruckhart. The responders were a diverse assemblage of individuals from across the country.

Ryan had arranged to be liaison between the Bundy family and the militia. This was a necessary element in protecting Cliven Bundy from possible criminal charges (See The Bundy Affair – Answering the Most Common Question).

However, Jerry, back at home in Pennsylvania, had different ideas than Ryan, especially as to when the event was over, from the OMA standpoint. This, and other conflicts, demonstrated the need to overhaul the structure of OMA so that decisions could be made by a board, with a majority, rather than the conflicting 50/50.

OMD & BTFA

In June 2014, Ryan and Jerry came to terms on a breakup of OMA whereby Jerry would retain the name and would be supportive of a new organization that would be known as “Operation Mutual Defense” (OMD), more descriptive of the role it was intended to play in providing defense against overbearing governmental intrusions.

My role was to assist, as an advisor, though not a voting member, as my primary role is writing about events. I was also to be a media advisor, since in my over twenty years of experience, I have learned, well, how to use carefully written articles that can have an effect on even mainstream media’s presentation of stories.

We also determined that a sister organization needed to be created to deal with funding. If the government went after OMD, they could possibly confiscate any funds held by OMD. This would preclude any possibility of OMD providing financial assistance to those who participated in an OMD event.

We know well from the Bundy event that tens of thousands of dollars were raised, purportedly to support that cause, though very little was actually used to support the activities at the ranch.

Perhaps the largest organization, who claimed to have raised tens of thousands of dollars to support the effort, was Oathkeepers. However, with the exception of some direct support to members of Oathkeepers, there was nothing to demonstrate that any of the raised funds provided any necessary material support to the operation. Further, Oathkeepers has admitted that most of their membership is comprised of active and retired Law Enforcement Officers. That would explain why the “officer safety” aspect of law enforcement was applied when the Oathkeepers abandoned their mission to protect the Bundys when there was a threat of a drone strike at the ranch. (See The Bundy Affair – Oath Keepers vs. Militia – Part II).

To alleviate the confusion over the proper recipient of contributions, so that contributors would know that the proceeds would go where intended, without preference to “members”, rather to provide to all that responded to the call, a new organization was warranted. And, as many members of Oathkeepers had, based upon the failure of Oathkeepers as described in the above linked article, been more concerned with “officer safety”, it was determined that this new organization should be one that was based not on education, as Oathkeepers claims, rather, on being committed to the oath previously taken.

This led to the conception of “Bear True Faith and Allegiance…” (BTFA), based upon the wording within the oath one takes upon entry into military service. Anyone with any law enforcement experience would be excluded from membership, except when the advisory board saw fit, based upon demonstrable actions, to override the prohibition. It would also be open to any person who chose to take an oath, in the presence of a notary public, and provide the notarized certification of the oath to the board. This opened the door to many thousands of patriots who have not had military service, though believe in and are willing to Protect and Defend the Constitution against all Enemies, Foreign, and Domestic.

The BTFA would hold a primary responsibility to raise funds, secure them in a trust account, and distribute, as needed, to any OMD event, as well as other events that might warrant consideration. This would be the sister organization to complement OMD, and to provide the funding, which was lacking in Nevada.

Taken together, these two organizations were, potentially, a serious threat to the government going beyond its constitutional authority in undermining the rights of the People. It was anticipated that both would immediately come under government scrutiny.

The selection of potential members of the advisory board for both organizations was left to Ryan Payne.

My dealings with Kessler

One of Ryan’s choices for the OMD board was Chief Mark Kessler, based upon telephone conversations where Kessler provided verbal support and encouragement during the Bundy Affair. Kessler never did go to the ranch.

Kessler, having been invited to sit on the OMD board, while on a July 2, 2014, board conference call, suggested that Rick Light was bad and that he would have nothing to do with him. This was rather interesting in that Rick Light was a guest on Kessler’s radio show (59 min) on Guerilla Media, back on January 17, 2014. During the show, they both talked about not bad-mouthing fellow patriots and patted each other on the back.

I had asked what Kessler knew that proved that Rick Light was bad, and he said that he “just knew it.” So, in an effort to help him, and the others, understand why Rick Light was bad, I posted a link to the Committee of Safety Common Law Court Unanswered Indictment of Rick Light, so that they could see evidence of Light’s relationship with the FBI.

Unfortunately, it appears Kessler “knew” everything and refused to read anything that might challenge his beliefs. What I had posted was supportive of, and would have enhanced his understanding.

A series of emails going through the maillist for the OMD Advisory Board demonstrates the immaturity of Kessler, and his propensity to use name calling, poor language (potty-mouth) and grammar, and circuitous (private emails to me) that I forwarded to the board so that they could see his true character. What is not included, since I don’t record private phone calls, is the dozens of calls I received from Kessler, during this period, where he would throw out a couple of sentences, vulgar, accusatory, and baseless, and then hang up, just like a child prankster.

In the emails, you will note that some of the members, even after the display by Kessler, wanted him to remain on the board which would decide whether an event was worthy of a call up for patriots to participate, as they did at the Bundy Ranch. This brought question as to whether the board could function as it was intended to, since there was not a common mindset to go deep enough to make the kind of determinations it would have to make.

At this time, BTFA was still separate from OMD, though there were three members who sat on each board. Mike Frye was aware of the membership of each board. On July 29, he started a group PM on Facebook. The conversation included members of both boards, and, of course, Kessler.

A couple of years ago, Randy Mack, on You Have Tread On Me Radio (2 hr 18 min), did a radio show dispelling the nearly two-decade-old accusation, by Bill Cooper, that I was John Doe #4 in the Oklahoma City bombing. That information was readily available to anyone who chose to “investigate” the validity of Cooper’s allegation. Chief Kessler failed, in investigative skills. Even though he had my email address and phone number, he chose not to ask me about the accusations. Kessler failed in both interrogation and investigation skills.

The image of the conversation that occurred during this second Kessler tirade is shown, in its entirety, at the right (pdf of chat conversation). You can see that his character has not changed; however, it did have the effect of making ineffective all of the effort that went into bring some patriots together into both organizations — that would have surely been an objective that the government would want to see accomplished.

Some may question why all of this information is being presented. I have been active in the Patriot Community since Waco. In that time, I have had friends go to prison, and, in every case, except one, there has been an informant involved. That insight, and having had a friend that was offered a plea bargain, turned it down, and then provided me, against the government’s explicit instructions, a copy of the entire plea agreement (See Informants Amongst Us?), have, perhaps, provided me more insight into the workings of such activity than most (See Vortex – The threat that keeps us apart). It is to share that information so that, hopefully, many will be better informed and will raise questions, when such behavior becomes apparent in someone with whom they are associated.

Now, let’s proceed on to other activities of Chief Mark Kessler, again, to understand just how these infiltrators create a “presence”, so that they appear to be as much a patriot, or more so, than those hard workers who are doing what they are doing, with the best of intentions. It is those who really are doing that need to understand just how the operatives (informants, agents, etc.) work so that they can protect themselves and continue the good work that they do.

Kessler and the Southern Border

On July 7, 2014, Kessler expanded his now shattered groups (CSF and III% BOG) to include border operations. His first call out was in a Facebook posting (saved copy, if the page is taken down). This post, reads in part:

“Kessler here… we’re expecting to make contact and be engaged by heavily armed cartel escorts trucking dope into Arizona, Feel free to join if you want, but be prepared to get contacted by heavily armed cartel members with automatic weapons, & possible grenades… so I suggest those who live in az come to the front lines and assist in stopping the traffickers, murderes[sic], rapest[sic] from entering! Instead of bitching about it on social media

Well, perhaps he is just going to go to the border, where he has never been before. However, in talking with those I am aware of that have been actively working the border, there was no prior discussion or invitation for Kessler to come, especially under the circumstances outlined in that Facebook post.

In the years that those who have been protecting the border, there have been no grenades thrown, nor has there been any real contact with the cartels, though some of the people that they have made contact with may be cartel members. Most, however, are coyotes, drug runners, or illegal immigrants. Firefights have not erupted, though it seems as if Kessler wants to make that happen, or, it is false (amateurish) bravado, or, simply to entice people (of the wrong sort for border operations) to join him in his quest for fame and glory.

I have spoken with two leaders of border operations, one from Texas, the other from Arizona. Kessler contacted both, and both refused to extend the desired “invitation”, as they saw that he had no desire to learn how to run such operations, and determined that it would be dangerous to even have him in their Areas of Operation.

In a subsequent post, he says:

This is why we need funding to get as many people to join our Arizona border Mission on July 19th, we can not wait anymore! this illegal invasion by Cartel controlled Mexican Military must stop , they are using hit and run tactics, straing[sic] out of guerilla war fair[sic] manuals, Border agents are on stand down orders from the Liar in Chief,
I can’t believe Americans are letting this happen right before their eyes and do nothing !!!! this it way out of control on JULY 19TH Pack your gear, weapons, ammo, first aid kits, MRE’s or canned food A lot of bottled water and roll out to rally point in sierra vista Arizona, if you can’t make this mission, please assist by donating, this mission is going to be longer then[sic] 5 days, we are asking for patriots to do rotations every week to re-leave current units that will be their[sic] from July 19th , as once said, ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country!
rally point in sierra vista,
The Windemere Hotel & Conference Center
2047 State Highway 92
Sierra Vista, AZ 85635

So, now he is asking for funding, which would only take away from those sincere people that are actually doing something. He also expects that he can do in five days what others have spent years, to even put a dent in border crossings.

In yet another post:

Anyone that has night vision monoculars or night vision scopes they want to donate towards the July 19th Arizona mission, we are in need of these items soft and hard body armor. if by chance their[sic] is a great American patriot out their[sic] that follows this situation on the border but wants to stay out of the lime light, and they have the ability to donate one of these thermal weapon scopes annonamusly[sic], it would be greatly appreciated, we are in need of gear like thermal scopes, night vision monoculars, night vision scopes, ammo, & MRE meals, soft & hardbody armor along with first aid kits , wet wipes & funding for gas and water. anyone willing to donate ammo we need the following for sidearms: 9mm, 40 cal, 45acp, for long guns we need 5.56 x 45mm, 223 caliber, 7.62 x 51mm, 308 caliber, 7.62 x 39mm, 5.45 x 39mm

He begins asking for high tech (expensive) equipment, and apparently has quite an arsenal in that he is asking for ammunition for 3 types of handguns and six types of rifles. Apparently, however, his entourage, when he arrived in Arizona consisted of himself and no more than 15 others.

After his trip, he reported:

“Learned a lot about how our border patrol protects our southern borders and that not everyone on the other side wants to jump the fence! They are perfectly happy living in their country! And not everyone is working for cartels! Not even the Mexican military.
“I’m sure their [sic] are small pockets of military units assisting/working with cartels but not every single unit as it was portrayed to me and the crew with me!
“I can say we were expecting to be attacked by heavily armed cartels and we drove 2500 miles to respond for assistance, willing to risk life and limb, not knowing what we were walking into, armed for an all out battle with drug smugglers… thank god[sic] that didn’t happen.

From sources on the Arizona border, it appears that Kessler & Co. did go to the border, and spent no more than a few hours, at best. How he was able to determine the conditions, when those who have spent many months, or years, on the border to understand what those conditions are, is hard to say.

He also says that he was expecting to be attacked. And, even though that was his intention, from the earlier posting, he now thanks God that it didn’t happen.

This appears to be showmanship at its finest; Endeavor to present an appearance of knowledge of conditions, the willingness to initiate a fight, and the humility to thank God when that fight did not ensue.

Other reports I have received from those on the Arizona border indicate that local sheriffs and Border Patrol did pursue Kessler and his group in a helicopter. They were desperate to find him and “kick him out of town.” The local law enforcement people had developed reasonable working relationships with the militia units, and between what the militia units reported their opinions on Kessler to be, that of a loose cannon, and law enforcement’s own investigation, they wisely decided that he had to be removed from the area, as persona non grata.

In Texas, as in Arizona, many of the border protection groups are reluctant to have their names included in this article, and I honor those requests. However, K. C. Massey is willing to lend his name to what he has reported to me. In written communication, regarding his contact with Kessler:

“I was personally contacted by Mark Kessler on or about the first of September. He inquired about joining us at Camp LoneStar, situated on the Texas border near Brownsville. I exchanged several texts and telephone calls with Kessler. He was talking about wanting to “come kick wetback ass” and his attitude was not what I considered conducive to our mission on the border. I denied his request to join Camp LoneStar and he broke off communications with me.”

It is interesting to note that Kessler’s call to Massey was just a few days after the shooting event that eventually led to Massey’s arrest (See Camp Lone Star – The Arrest of K. C. Massey).

In a follow up conversation with Massey, he had been in contact with nearly all of the Texas border protection operations, and nobody seemed to want Kessler to visit their operations. They wanted to maintain distance from him, as well.

Mark Kessler – A Checkered Past – Part 1

Mark Kessler – The “Screw” Turns – Part 3

Mark Kessler – Coming Out of the Closet – Part 4

Camp Lone Star – Arbitrary & Capricious Justice?

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
November 24, 2014

“Arbitrary and Capricious” is a rather interesting phrase. Most people have never heard of it, so perhaps, it is time to understand what it is and what the legal significance is.

Let’s start with some definitions, from the respective sources:

Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition:

Arbitrary. Means in an “arbitrary” manner, as fixed or done capriciously or at pleasure. Without adequate determining principle; not founded in the nature of things; nonrational; not done or acting according to reason or judgment; depending on the will alone; absolutely in power; capriciously; tyrannical; despotic; Without fair, solid, and substantial cause; that is, without cause based upon the law; Not governed by any fixed rules or standard. Ordinarily, “arbitrary” is synonymous with bad faith or failure to exercise honest judgment and an arbitrary act would be one performed without adequate determination of principle and one not founded in nature of things.

Arbitrary and capricious. Characterization of a decision or action taken by an administrative agency or inferior court meaning willful and unreasonable action without consideration or in disregard of facts or without determining principle.

Caprice (root of capricious). Whim, arbitrary, seemingly unfounded motivation. Disposition to change one’s mind impulsively.

Webster’s 1828 Dictionary:

ARBITRARY, a. Depending on will or discretion ; not governed by any fixed rules; as, an arbitrary decision; an arbitrary punishment.

-Arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of liberty abused to licentiousness.

Washington.

CAPRICIOUS, a. Freakish; whimsical; apt to change opinions suddenly, or to start from ones purpose; unsteady; changeable; fickle; fanciful; subject to change or irregularity; as a man of a capricious temper.

Many state and federal statutes make arbitrary and capricious actions “null and void”, since the concept of such application of law is far beyond any concept of “equal justice under the law”.

Now you probably have a picture of just what “arbitrary and capricious” means, so let’s take an objective view of many of the circumstances surrounding the incident, arrest, and accusations, against K. C. Massey. See if you can recognize where arbitrary and capricious come into play.

We’ll start with the shooting incident on August 29, 2014, when Border Patrol Agent Hernandez fired 5 shots, from 30 feet away, missing his target. The target was John Foerster. He was holding a firearm, which he placed on the ground, after the shots were fired. No testimony even suggests that he pointed the rifle at the agent, but, more on that, later. Now, agents are not to shoot at illegal aliens, unless fired upon. So, I suppose that this shooting is noteworthy in that he didn’t fire on an illegal alien.

After the shooting, Foerster, “Wolf” and Massey were asked to turn their weapons over to BPS, since BPS seemed to think that some “illegals” might sneak up to Massey’s Kawasaki mule, grab the weapons, and then start shooting at the BPS. Makes sense, since we have learned, so often, that “officer safety” is paramount to the safety of unarmed citizens.

So, the weapons that were not fired were turned over to BPS rather than contest the matter with the armed agents, one of whom had just fired at one of the citizens. And, there is little doubt that this incident should be classified as an “officer involved shooting”, since it was only an officer who shot anything. So, we have an officer involved shooting. First thing is to secure the officer’s firearm for the requisite “firearm audit”, which would include ballistics, ammunition count, etc. Instead, BPS Captain Cantu traded weapons with Hernandez, and then placed the shooting weapon in his own holster. Nobody read “Miranda Rights” to the citizens, but the firearms were taken then given to Cameron County Sheriff Investigator Sergio Padilla. Still no receipt for the property taken, no Miranda, and no indication that there would be the requisite “firearm audit”. So, when armed, uniformed officers take your firearms, and they don’t provide a receipt, is that armed robbery — the act of highwaymen? (See Massey’s account of incident)

But, still no indication in the filed reports that any scrutiny, except a verbal report, was made regarding the only person that fired a weapon, that day.

Now, we jump to the criminal complaints that lead to an Arrest Warrant.

The Criminal Complaint is supposed to be an affidavit. Let’s look at what an affidavit is, and what standard we would be held to if we were to file an affidavit:

Affidavit. A written or printed declaration or statement of facts, made voluntarily, and confirmed by the oath or affirmation of the party making it, taken before a person having authority to administer such oath or affirmation.

First, it is a statement of fact. So, is it a statement of fact if someone tells me that something happened, or, is it merely a fact that someone told me what happened? I can attest to the fact that someone told me what happened, but, I cannot attest to what happened, since I don’t know that I was told was something factual. If someone told me that something happened, it is hearsay, not fact, at least to the extent of my knowledge. It is to be confirmed by oath or affirmation, and must be acknowledged by a person having the authority to administer such oath or affirmation”.

Now, this might be insignificant (arbitrarily not applied), if it were not for the fact that the Constitution, in the Fourth Amendment, states:

• The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Because the Crown had used “Writs of Assistance“, there was cause for the Framers to incorporate such protection against an overreaching government. Should not the government be bound by the document (Constitution) that created it? Or, let me use the words of a friend when discussing overreaching government authority. He said, “There is no effective bar by an individual to any action taken by the Federal government. Federal judges will NOT help dismember the system that created them.” He was a former AUSA (Assistant United States Attorney).

So, the Criminal Complaint begins with “I, Special Agent Anthony M. Rotunno, affiant, do hereby depose and state the following”. He does not state that he has knowledge, or, that what he is presenting is factual. He does not state that he has personal knowledge of what he has said, nor does he “certify” that what he has said is true, though U. S. Magistrate Judge Morgan, does state that it was sworn to him. So, the only element required in an affidavit that meets the standard was made by the judge, not by the affiant.

So, let’s see what he says, that is supposed to be certified as true and correct (from the Criminal Complaint):

2. On August 29, 2014, United States Border Patrol Agents from the Fort Brown Border Patrol Station, while in performance of their official duties, encountered an armed individual, identified as John Frederick FOERSTER, in the brush. During this encounter, FOERSTER turned and pointed a firearm at a USBP Agent, who intern fired several shots at FOERSTER. FOERSTER is a member of “Rusty’s Rangers,” an armed citizen militia group patrolling the border of the United States and Mexico.

This is the only source on file that says that Foerster pointed a firearm at the agent. He lets his “device” override our language when he says “intern” instead of “in turn” or “in return”. Kind of makes you wonder how much effort he put into making this a truthful statement. He also, decides, in this “sworn statement”, that Rusty’s Rangers” is a “militia group”. Is that personal knowledge or an effort at demonization? That can be nothing more than an opinion, which should never be presented as fact, and there is nothing that Camp Lone Star or Rusty’s Rangers has ever presented that indicated that they were “militia”.

In the third item, he states that Massey and Varner “were armed as well”. He was not present, so, he can have no personal knowledge of that fact.

4. While conducting the post-shooting investigation, five firearms were taken into custody by Cameron County Sheriff Investigator Sergio Padilla. The firearms are described as…

The five firearms were all personal weapons and did not include the one that Hernandez had. Is that a presumption that a BPS agent cannot commit a crime worth investigating?

7. On October 16, 2014, your affiant spoke with Supervisory Border Patrol Agent Danny Cantu. SBPA Cantu was in the area of the shooting when the shots were fired and responded immediately to the scene. SBPA Cantu stated that he in-fact recovered the ZASTAVA, Model: PAP M92PV, 7.62 x 39mm pistol, SN: MP2PV005143 from FOERSTER and that he escorted MASSEY, FORESTER and Varner to the staging area for interviews; witnessing MASSEY carrying a holstered Springfield, Model: XDS, .45 caliber pistol, SN: XS664509 and the Centurion, Model: 39 Sporter, 7.62 x 39mm rifle, SN: 39NCO2585, which was slung around MASSEY’s neck.

Hearsay! This does not meet the standard that the Framers set out for government to abide by. This is an arbitrary and capricious acceptance of a piece of worthless paper as evidence with which to issue and arrest warrant for the arrest of Massey.

The Criminal Complaint is available, with all of the statements made by Rotunno. Why don’t you play “hidden picture” with it and find what he has “hidden” that is not personal knowledge and/or based upon hearsay.

Because of the arrest of Massey, the government was able to secure a “Search Warrant“. It differs slightly in form, though the absence of valid content is apparent. The Search Warrant affidavit is, at least, titled, “Affidavit for Search Warrant”, so the claim is made, though the document will still fall well short of what is required by the Constitution. First, he gives his credential as an expert because he went to many government school training classes (I hope these schools are better than the government public schools, or they are equally worthless).

Then, as he gets past his superior intellect, he says:

This affidavit is based on information received from law enforcement officers, law enforcement databases, as well as my own investigation. This affidavit seeking the issuance of a search warrant based on the following…

Then, he reiterates, sometimes reworded, most of the same content that was included in the Complain/Arrest Warrant. He fails to note that the camp, Camp Lone Star, is located on private property, with the consent of the owner, rather, he leaves it hanging:

E.  USBP Agents have had numerous encounters with members of “Rusty’s Rangers/Regulators”, as this group has set up a “camp” (referred to as Camp Lone Star) near the Rio Grande River in Brownsville, Cameron County, Texas. This “camp” appears to be their staging area for their patrols.

He also fails to point out that many of the “encounters” (rather suggestive) were favorable and cooperative, as they were the day of the shooting incident.

Then, in an effort to fortify his position, he says:

F.  During these encounters, on more than one occasion, USBP Agents have seen MASSEY carrying what appears to be a holstered firearm on his hip and a rifle slung around his neck. These encounters are videotaped by MASSEY, usually via a body mounted or vehicle mounted camera; and then posted to MASSEY’s Facebook page. Affiant has viewed MASSEY’s Facebook; viewing the posted videos that depict MASSEY on patrol with other individuals who armed with long guns. MASSEY’s Facebook page also depicts numerous still photos of MASSEY and others armed with firearms. Friday, October 17 of 2014, was the last time USBP Agents saw MASSEY carrying a firearm; more specifically what they referred to as “automatic firearms”.

Darn, he turned semi-automatic weapons into “automatic firearms”, and this guy works for BATF. Note that they arrested Massey with a firearm, so they need not revisit, and enhance, the Camp Lone Star aspect, but, then, they had to get the demonization in to make sure that the Grand Jury would have an earful as to how bad a dude K. C. Massey really is. That makes it easier to get the Grand Jury Indictment.

Now, we get to the arrest, where, miraculously, nobody was injured:

I.  As part of this investigation, it was discovered that MASSEY had been staying at the “Value Place”, an extended stay type hotel located at 995 Media Luna Road, Brownsville, TX, and to driving a white in color 2006 Ford F-150, TX LP [blocked out] (registered to Kevin MASSEY, at [blocked out] with various decals and stickers on the back of the truck. This same vehicle is used by MASSEY to drive to and from the Value Place to “Camp Lone Star” as witnessed by FBI Special Agent Joe Schneider.

First point of interest is that they “discovered” that Massey had been staying at the “Value Place”. This might have been the role that Foerster played, but then we have FBI Special Agent Joe Schneider witnessing Massey driving from Value Place to Camp Lone Star.

Now, I like this next part:

J.  At approximately 9:30 AM, ATF SA’s, with the assistance of FBI, USBP and CCSO agents and officers, established surveillance at the Value Place and located MASSEY’s vehicle parked in the front. Surveillance on this vehicle was maintained until MASSEY was arrested leaving the Value Place at approximately 1:00 PM, as he was walking toward his vehicle while talking to someone using a white in color iPhone 5. The iPhone 5 is a smartphone which is capable of taking still photos and uploading photos to Facebook via the internet, which affiant has performed on numerous occasions with his own iPhone.

So, they were there at 9:30 AM, waiting to arrest Massey. They arrested Massey at about 1:00 PM. According to Massey, there were between 20 and 30 armed agents that made the arrest, with guns drawn. They had waited three and a half hours to make the arrest. So, if we use even twenty agents, we can calculate that it took about 70 man-hours (nearly two workweeks) of time to make a simple arrest — and BPS has a shortage of people to conduct their job. It is that shortage of BPS agents that led to the establishment of Camp Lone Star and Massey’s involvement on the border — to ease the burden on BPS.

It is also interesting to note that Rotunno has sufficient skill to take “still photos and uploading photos to Facebook via the internet, which affiant has performed on numerous occasions with his own iPhone.” I wonder if that was part of the government training circular, or if his children taught him how to do this.

Let’s get some more hearsay, just to understand the deficiency of what was intended by the Framers to be legal sufficiency:

K.  After MASSEY was detained, ATF SA A. Rivas informed MASSEY that he was being arrested based on an arrest warrant, and asked MASSEY if he had any firearms or anything else on him that the agents needed to know about. MASSEY immediately informed SA Rivas that he had a firearm “in his pocket”. SA Rivas then pulled a loaded Springfield Armory USA pistol, model XD5, caliber .45, SN XS613495 out of MASSEY’s right side, front pocket. The firearm and the white iPhone 5 were seized by ATF.

So, BATF SA Rivas retrieved Massey’s firearm, but we have Rotunno making the statement. It might be proper if he had said, “I observed SA Rivas ask Massey if he had a firearm, and then observed Rivas securing that firearm.” However, we are, once again, simply left guessing as to what might really have happened. In addition, we must wonder how dangerous an iPhone 5 is in the hands of a notorious criminal, or even in Massey’s hands.

Then we get to where there should be a statement that meets the standard for an affidavit, though look as we might, we simply find:

Based on the above facts, it is respectfully requested that a search warrant be issued for the items listed in Attachment A, specifically looking for items listed in Attachment B.

So, he says that what he has said is fact, though he has no proof that it is fact. Very little in the entire affidavit suggests that it was personal knowledge, and some of it, obviously, is not. So, where is the chain of sworn statements as to facts that you or I would be held to?

And, while we are discussing “chains”, what about the “chain of evidence”? From the O. J. Simpson trial through other high profile trials, we find the necessity of the court to require a chain of evidence. If that chain becomes broken, then the evidence, itself, is brought into question. Where are the receipts for transfer of the evidence to BPS, CCSO, and then to BATF? Was it a “magical” transition of possession? I cannot find “magical” in the Constitution, or even the U. S. Code. Or, is it simply, if you have enough money, Justice might just work for you? Perhaps we can begin to understand why the statutes of Justice have a balance beam to measure the gold, and a blindfold, as if justice is based simply upon the values that the court, and players on the government side, place on it.

If we are to assume that such sloppy work can be considered within the intent of the Framers, then we are also bound to assume the guilt of a party by as equally sloppy practices within the halls of justice.

Perhaps it is time for us to read the words, and rely upon ourselves to interpret them, as we believe the Framers intended. So far, we have left it up to the government to decide what the words mean, and we have been sorely abused for our failure to insure that government abides by the document that created it (the government), and brought it into existence.

“Are the people to serve the Government, or, is the government to serve the People?”

Related articles:

Camp Lone Star – The Arrest of K. C. Massey

Camp Lone Star – Update #1 on K. C. Massey

Camp Lone Star – Massey & The Clash of Laws

Camp Lone Star – Search Warrant or Fishing license?

Camp Lone Star – Cruel and Unusual Punishments – Before Conviction

Liberty or Laws? “Felon in Possession of a Firearm” is Not Legal or Lawful

Liberty or Laws?
Government Enforces Their Laws – Who Shall Enforce the Constitution?

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
November 3, 2014

“Felony Possession of a Firearm” is the feds’ way of charging someone who is a convicted felon and possesses a firearm, which is found in 18 USC 922, at (g)(1). In two previous articles, we touched upon various aspects of that law. In “No bended knee for me” – the Charge against Robert Beecher, we addressed the interstate commerce aspect of that law. It explained that the law can only be properly applied if a person is directly involved in interstate or foreign commerce of a firearm, as any other interpretation would result in unequal justice under the law, whereby a citizen of one state might be able to have both firearms and ammunition, in another state, one might be able to only have ammunition or a firearm, and in the remainder of the states, one could possess neither firearm or ammunition.

In a subsequent article, Camp Lone Star – Massey & The Clash of Laws, we discussed the conflict between state and federal laws. The Constitution provides, in Article IV, § 4, that “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government”. Further, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, to wit:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This provides that if a power is not delegated to the United States, the state may consider it reserved for their disposition, and, when that is not applied, then the people retain the power.

Now, supposing that is the case, could the federal government, absent such delegated power, pass a law, or promulgate a rule (See The Bundy Affair – The Revenge of the BLM), that was Constitutional, or is it without jurisdiction – unless supported by another power or authority granted to the federal government? The “Clash of Laws” article refers to a Supreme Court decision, United States v Lopez 514 US 549 (1995), which removes any doubt as to whether the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, “To regulate Commerce … among the several States” (Art. I, §8, clause 3) allows that regulation to extend to any use, once removed from interstate commerce. The Court ruled, “To uphold the Government’s contention… would require this Court to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional Commerce Clause authority to a general police power of the sort held only by the States”. The Court, in declining to decide in the government’s favor, ruled that the government was unable to extend its “Commerce Clause authority” to encroach upon the authority reserved to the States.

So, that is two strikes against the federal government, in their intent to broaden their authority where it was never granted by the Constitution. Is it possible that there might be a third strike that would, without question, prohibit the federal government from imposing any limitation of the right to possess a firearm, leaving that power solely to the state government to do as they wish?

The first eight Amendments are prohibitions – things that the federal government cannot violate. Let’s start with the Second Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Before we proceed, it might be worth understanding what the definition of the most significant word in that Amendment is. This definition is from Webster’s 1828 Dictionary — words as they were understood by the Founders.

infringe, v.t.
1. To break, as contracts; to violate, either positively by contravention, or negatively by non-fulfillment or neglect of performance. A prince or a private person infringes an agreement or covenant by neglecting to perform its conditions, as well as by doing what is stipulated not to be done.
2. To break; to violate; to transgress; to neglect to fulfill or obey; as, to infringe a law.

infringed, pp. Broken; violated; transgressed.

Well, that is pretty clear that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” means that it is not within the granted powers and authorities granted to the federal government, for it to do “what is stipulated not to be done”.

That appears to be a good start, though we need to go a bit further to see if that infringement is contrary to a provision of U. S. Code that is very consistent with the Second Amendment, and in its provisions, does not exclude the right, under federal law, to possess a firearm — except, possibly, while directly involved in interstate or foreign commerce.

So, what about the militia? The government tells us how bad they are, but, what does United States Code (the Law of the Land, as per Art. VI, say about the militia? From 10 U.S.C. §311, et seq, pertinent parts:

   § 311 – Militia: composition and classes – tells us who is in the militia. “The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32 [note: this has to do with ages of officers], under 45 years of age…” It goes on to explain both organized and unorganized militia. The next section tells us who is exempt from the militia, to wit:

   § 312 : US Code – Section 312: Militia duty: exemptions

(a) The following persons are exempt from militia duty:

(1) The Vice President.

(2) The judicial and executive officers of the United States, the several States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.

(3) Members of the armed forces, except members who are not on active duty.

(4) Customhouse clerks.

(5) Persons employed by the United States in the transmission of mail.

(6) Workmen employed in armories, arsenals, and naval shipyards of the United States.

(7) Pilots on navigable waters.

(8) Mariners in the sea service of a citizen of, or a merchant in, the United States.

    (b) A person who claims exemption because of religious belief is exempt from militia duty in a combatant capacity, if the conscientious holding of that belief is established under such regulations as the President may prescribe. However, such a person is not exempt from militia duty that the President determines to be noncombatant.

Nowhere in this law made in pursuance to the Constitution, specifically the Second Amendment, does it prohibit a convicted felon from being in the militia. In fact, it is mandatory, since he is not exempted, that he be within those defined as “unorganized”. So, ponder this; can someone be in the militia that is unable to possess a firearm? That would seem to be contrary to the Constitutional provision pertaining for the militia. only the most absurd reasoning could devise to argue against a person’s right to possess a firearm, with the exception of that portion that prohibits direct involvement in interstate or foreign commerce.

Article VI, clause 2 tells us “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof… shall be the supreme Law of the Land.” So, if a law is made in pursuance, as opposed to without such authority, it is Constitutional. Otherwise, it is not.

So, do we allow the judges, who are constantly subverting the Constitution by ruling contrary to its provisions, or adding their personal beliefs, as enforceable points of law, to continue to rule in such a manner? Or, do we, as Americans, have every right to read, interpret, so long as we don’t err in that interpretation, abide by, and enforce the law as was intended by the Founders? Moreover, does this right extend to the use of whatever force necessary to free those shackled by government efforts to quash the Constitution in such a manner as to grant them powers that are tyrannical?

Related articles:

Liberty or Laws? — Dealing with the Current Invasion

Liberty or Laws? — Militia in Defense of the State

Liberty or Laws? — Militia in Aid of Our Neighbor

Liberty or Laws? — Immigration or Invasion

Liberty or Laws? — Treason Against the State

Liberty or Laws? — Government and Patriots Aiding and Abetting Criminal Activity

Liberty or Laws? — … and jealously guard our Liberties

Liberty or Laws? – Appeasement

Liberty or Laws? “Felon in Possession of a Firearm” is Not Legal or Lawful

Camp Lone Star – Massey & The Clash of Laws

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
October 27, 2014

K. C. Massey was in the area when a shooting occurred that brought numbers of Border Protection Service (BPS) agents, and Cameron County Sheriff Investigator Sergio Padilla, to the scene. The BPS agents asked that the weapons of all three individuals be turned over to BPS for reasons of safety (Explained in Massey’s account of incident). They were then turned over to Padilla, though at no time was Massey read Miranda rights, nor was the transfer of the weapons voluntary. It was simply done because they were agents, with guns, and in the principle of “discretion being the better part of valor”, they relinquished the weapons.

Those weapons then became the object of a Criminal Complaint, charging Massey and John Foerster (See Camp Lone Star – Update #1 on K. C. Massey) with felony possession of a firearm, based on 18 U. S. Code § 922 (g)(1).

Federal Authority and limitations

The theory behind laws, and the application of law, including ambiguity of the word, intent of the law, and misapplication of those laws is addressed in “No bended knee for me” – the Charge against Robert Beecher (for those interested in that aspect of persecution), however, the purpose of this article is to discuss what might be termed “the clash of laws” between the United States and Texas, under a Republican Form of Government (Art. IV, § 4 of the Constitution, as a member state of the Union of these United States (yes, the plural is intended).

To understand this clash, we must first look at the powers granted to, and the limitations imposed upon, on the federal government, by the Constitution.

First, there is the inevitable, and truly sacred, Second Amendment.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Now, that reference to “free State” applies only to the states, not to the federal government, since the existence of a federal militia was never addressed in the Constitution, only the authority to call forth the militia. The first reference to what might be considered a federal militia occurred in 1916 with the enactment of law embodied in 10 U.S.C. § 311 (See A United States Militia). So, the Constitutional references to militia and bearing arms are contained in that Second Amendment and the following provisions in the Constitution”

Article I, § 8, clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Article I, § 8, clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

So, Congress can call forth the Militia, which they could not “call” if they were already under federal authority, and next, they recognize that “Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States”. Leaving, of course, officers and training, to the “parent” of the militia, the States.

The only other provision is found in Article II, § 2, which reads,

“The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States…”

This makes clear that the Militia belong to the States, not to the federal government, except when called into service. Now, the only mention of “arms” is associated with that militia in the Second Amendment, which links any firearms laws only to the authority to the states (we will go further on this subject, later). The only applicability to federal authority, or should we say, prohibition, is that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” It appears that it wasn’t until the 1930s when the government first crossed that line drawn by the Constitution, and has continued to expand overarching authority into those Constitutionally prohibited realms, since that time (See The Three Constitutions – Which One do You Defend).

There is one more concern regarding federal authority that must be addressed, before we get to the heart of the matter. That is the authority granted regarding Commerce, Article I, § 8, clause 3, says,

“The Congress shall have Power… To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.”

It does not grant any power within the states, only “among the several States”. That is interstate, not intrastate, commerce.

Then, we have the only other “commerce” provision in Article I, § 9, clause 6:

“No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.”

Now, you need to keep these points in mind as we continue down a path of discovery — to determine what We, not the government, see as the powers granted and limitations imposed.

Possession of a Firearm by a Convicted Felon (Federal)

The only charge against Massey, according to the Criminal Complaint, is a violation of 18 USC §922(g)(1) (the full text of §922(g) at 18 USC 922). The pertinent part is as follows:

(g) It shall be unlawful for any person –

(1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;

to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

So, let’s look at the obvious intent of the law. First, “It shall be unlawful“, well, no problem with that.

Next, if that person “has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.” Let’s assume for the sake of discussion, that that criterion has been met — that Massey has such a criminal record. So, now we move on to the third portion of the Statute.

It is unlawful “to ship or transport in interstate… commerce“. Now, this next phrase is rather interesting. “Possess” means “To occupy in person; to have in one’s actual and physical control“. So this must mean that you have in your control the firearm when you affect the commerce. The possession must be done while participating in or affecting that commerce. Finally, “to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate commerce.” Well, that last one surely must be the direct recipient, the addressee – to “receive”, as opposed to “possess”. For if that were the case, it would read, “to possess any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate commerce.”

So, let’s revisit what we said about Commerce. “No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue… one State over those of another.” However, if we consider the implications of the law, if you live in a state that manufactures a firearm, then you can posses it, as it has not been involved in interstate commerce. However, if you have ammunition that was manufactured in another state, then you are guilty because of the ammunition. If you live in a state that manufactures both weapons and ammunition, you can posses those “firearms” and ammunition. However, if you live in a state that manufactures one, the other, or neither, then you may have but one, or none. That seems to give Preference to one state over another.

Further, this absolutely defies the concept of equal justice; it would defy the concept of Article IV, § 2, which states, “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all of the Privileges and Immunities of the Citizens of the several States.” And, it would mean that if one moved to another state, with what was legal, from the federal standpoint, in the state from which he began, he would criminal in the other state.

Texas Possession Laws

So, let’s see what Texas has to say about a convicted felon possessing a firearm. The applicable law is found in Texas Penal Code, Section 46.04. The pertinent part is as follows:

(a) A person who has been convicted of a felony commits an offense if he possesses a firearm:

(1) after conviction and before the fifth anniversary of the person’s release from confinement following conviction of the felony or the person’s release from supervision under community supervision, parole, or mandatory supervision, whichever date is later; or

(2) after the period described by Subdivision (1), at any location other than.

(f) For the purposes of this section, an offense under the laws of this state, another state, or the United States…

So, if one is convicted of a qualifying felony, after he has served his time gone through post conviction service, the clock starts. After five years, he cannot possess weapons, except at “the premises at which the person lives.” Now, premises, in legal terminology, is the house, outbuildings and land. This is to afford protection — once the five years has expired. It does not say house, it includes his whole dominion. He can protect his property.

Now, a question arises as to if he relocates, and lives elsewhere. In Massey’s case, he has lived at Camp Lone Star for four months. The land is owned by “Rusty” Monsees, and the camp is located on his property, with his consent. That is where he lives, so the premises, though not owned by him, is the premises that are applicable in the statute. He encountered the BPS on those premises, so he had every legal right to possess the weapons, under state law.

When he was arrested, he was in a motel room, where he lived the night before he was arrested. This may be a gray area, though it seems that since he lived in that motel room, that night, and that the obvious purpose of the law is for personal protection, that he would still be legal, under state law. The alternative would have been to either secure his firearms in his truck, or to leave them unattended at Camp Lone Star. Though this may be debatable, if we look at intent, it is probable. If not, the only violation, under state law, might be him having his weapons in the motel room. However, he was not charged with that. The initial charge came when he surrendered his weapons, without Miranda, while still fully in compliance with Texas law. The Complaint was based upon his lawful (state law) possession. The Complaint led to the arrest, which might be the only exception to state law. However, the Complaint, itself, admits to “forbidden fruit”.

So, where do we go, next?

Collision of Laws

Recently, Washington state and Colorado enact laws legalizing marijuana. Shortly thereafter, the Department of Justice announced that they were going to suspend prosecution of federal marijuana laws in those two states. Shall we ponder their reasoning for making such a decision?

Let’s suppose that state law says you can posses marijuana, and federal law says that you cannot. To begin to understand this, and the subsequent discussion, perhaps we need to interrupt, for a minute, and understand what James Madison told us in Federalist Papers #62:

It poisons the blessing of liberty itself. It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is today, can guess what it will be tomorrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?

So, law is “a rule of action”, or, perhaps, a prohibition. But, it is there to guide us in remaining within the boundaries of law, or suffering the consequences of deviation from the law.

So, if marijuana is legal in Colorado, and criminal by federal law, which “rule of action” are we bound by? Well, the government did not want to face the consequences of a legal challenge to their presumed superiority of their laws over the state’s laws. Let’s look at Article IV, § 4, of the Constitution:

“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.”

So, we have the only “guarantee” in the Constitution, and that is that we have a “Republican Form of Government”. That guarantee is that so long as the state does not enact a law in violation of the Constitution, they have every right to enact any other law — such as the marijuana law. Gee, it also provides that the government “shall protect… them against Invasion”. Golly, gee, isn’t that what K. C. Massey and Camp Lone Star were doing, since the government was having so much trouble fulfilling this obligation?

However, the marijuana laws are the “Conflict of Laws”, and, perhaps, the felony possession laws are also a Conflict of Laws. After all, the same dilemma arises. Can K. C. Massey possess firearms, so long as he does so in compliance with Texas Law, under their Republican Form of Government? Or, is he bound by federal law that depends so much on the Commerce provisions of the Constitution?

Let’s look at what the United States Supreme Court said about the extent of authority granted by the commerce clause. The case is United States v Lopez 514 US 549 (1995).

The federal government had enacted the “Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990”, which forbids “any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that [he] knows . . . is a school zone.” The District Court denied Lopez, as they claimed that the law was “a constitutional exercise of Congress’ power to regulate activities in and affecting commerce.”

That decision was appealed to the Appellate Court, who then reversed the lower court decisions, when Chief Justice Rehnquist said,

Held:

The Act exceeds Congress’ Commerce Clause authority. First, although this Court has upheld a wide variety of congressional Acts regulating intrastate economic activity that substantially affected interstate commerce, the possession of a gun in a local school zone is in no sense an economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, have such a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Section 922(q) is a criminal statute [as is the charge against Massey] that by its terms has nothing to do with “commerce” or any sort of economic enterprise, however broadly those terms are defined… Second, 922(q) contains no jurisdictional element which would ensure, through case-by-case inquiry, that the firearms possession in question has the requisite… nexus with interstate commerce. Respondent was a local student at a local school; there is no indication that he had recently moved in interstate commerce, and there is no requirement that his possession of the firearm have any concrete tie to interstate commerce. To uphold the Government’s contention that 922(q) is justified because firearms possession in a local school zone does indeed substantially affect interstate commerce would require this Court to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional Commerce Clause authority to a general police power of the sort held only by the States.

In a Certiorari to the Supreme Court, the case was heard. Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court. After a lengthy discussion, affirming most of what the Appellate Court had said in their decision, and extending even further into limitations of federal authority, the Decision concludes, “For the foregoing reasons the judgment of the Court of Appeals is Affirmed.”

So, the Supreme Court, back in 1995, imposed a limitation of authority on the federal government, regarding the utilization of the Commerce Clause beyond its Constitutional intent. And, the law that was overturned, 18 U. S. Code Section 922(q), a part of the same statute that is being used against Massey, requires that there be an economic nexus to commerce for a law to be valid.

The first portion of this article explains the wording of the law, (922 (g)(1), and how it is clearly tied to commerce. Whether it was rewritten after the Lopez decision, or not, it must have the nexus to commerce. If the ownership of the gun by Lopez does not have that nexus, how, possibly, can the ownership by Massey have what the other did not?

Commerce begins when somebody “ships” something in interstate commerce. It continues when someone “transports” something interstate commerce. It finally ends when someone “receives” something that has been sent and transported. At that point, the nexus to commerce ceases, and we are back to “Equal Protection under the Law”, where the state that you live in is the authority as to whether you can posses guns or ammunition.

The final point to be made on this subject is the fact that the state of Texas has three branches of government. They have, like every other state, a Legislative, and Executive, and a Judicial branch. The Judicial, of course, is to render justice. The Legislative, to enact laws, under its “Republican Form of Government”, and the Executive to sign such enactments into law, and enforce them.

If what the federal government implies to be true by their persecution of K. C. Massey is true, then there is no need for the three branches of the government of Texas to exist. On the other hand, the government of Texas should take a more aggressive role, as the Supreme Court did, in limiting the overbearing and abused authority of the federal law enforcement agencies.

Let me repeat two quotations from the above. First is by Chief Justice Rehnquist in the Lopez decision, the second, my observation, from over twenty years of reporting to the Patriot community, on the ramifications and consequences of the current round of persecutions by the federal government, contrary to the state’s constitutions and laws:

• To uphold the Government’s contention that 922(q) is justified because firearms possession in a local school zone does indeed substantially affect interstate commerce would require this Court to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional Commerce Clause authority to a general police power of the sort held only by the States.
• If what the federal government implies to be true by their persecution of K. C. Massey is true, then there is no need for the three branches of the government of Texas to exist.

Therefore, We must ask ourselves whether the people are here to serve the government, or, is the government here to serve the people? If the former, then we acquiesce to a condition of servitude. If the latter, then we must, in the Court of Public Opinion, rise above the government, and force them back to the limitations imposed on them by the Constitution, by whatever means necessary.

Related articles:

Camp Lone Star – The Arrest of K. C. Massey

Camp Lone Star – Update #1 on K. C. Massey

Camp Lone Star – Search Warrant or Fishing license?

Camp Lone Star – Cruel and Unusual Punishments – Before Conviction

Camp Lone Star – Arbitrary & Capricious Justice?

Liberty or Laws? “Felon in Possession of a Firearm” is Not Legal or Lawful